Mr Kazee’s January 2024 declaration that contemporary Jews are “the real followers of Moses” has been widely circulated and commented upon:

As I see the crowd in front of us. There are hundreds of orthodox rabbis, thousands of Jewish people. These are our brotheren [sic]. These are our brotheren [sic]. They are the real followers of Moses. They are the ones who make the Children of Israel proud.

I shall not comment further. If you do not see the issue with associating a pure prophet of Allāh who prayed behind Muḥammad ﷺ at ʾal-ʾAqṣā, with those who reject Muḥammad and the Qurʾān and await the destruction of ʾal-ʾAqṣā, then I do not have the skill to convince you. What I wish to present instead, is the history of Mr Kazee’s apologetics for heresy, specifically his advocacy for Shiasm, which I had personally heard.

I had already posted on the incident (which was essentially a string of tweets to him), but after reading it again, I realised that it is very unclear and requires some fleshing out. Bear in mind that I do not know of any recording of the incident, so I cannot add verbatim details.

Shīʿah Advocacy in South Africa

Mr Kazee “graced” our shores in September 2018. While it may shock many savvy members of the ʾUmmah, I do not hang onto every word of every internet popstar, and often have never heard of a particular glamourous personality. I had only touched on his Sīrah series and was not impressed. He seemed to have a penchant for adjusting facts to prove his point, rather than drawing lessons from the facts. Nevertheless, I did not entirely brush him off on such a cursory basis and was convinced to attend his seminar on 23^rd September. I could also mention that it was an expensive elitist event and I only attended because I received a free ticket.

The topic was ostensibly on the lines of Muslim unity and denouncing sectarianism. However, almost the entire seminar was dedicated to accepting Shīʿah, as “our brothers”. He seems to be obsessed with looking for brothers who believe in falsehood.

During the Q&A I wrote down some of my concerns for the organisers to give to him. However, it was clear that the organisers only read aloud questions from fanboys. I therefore tweeted my questions to him (as in the link above) but received no reply.

Sectarianism  

Mr Kazee commenced by denouncing the narrow extremist sectarianism of the ʾAhlus Sunnah, i.e. our attitude that only our beliefs are correct. This is in itself extremism from his side. How does one extreme of declaring genuine Muslims as apostates justify accepting every heretical religion as part of Islām, simply if they claim that they are Muslim? Why does Mr Kazee limit this then to accepting the Shīʿah as “our brothers”? Why then are those who believe in a new prophet not his “brothers” for example? His emotional tirade was more appropriate for a teenager on social media than a supposed scholar. Ignorant laymen misuse Allāh Words to support the Kazee denunciation of “sectarianism”. I do not recall if he specifically quoted this verse. However, since it is commonly quoted in the context of Kazee’s “Sunnī sectarianism” contention, its correct understanding is important:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ

Lo! As for those who sunder their religion and become schismatics, no concern at all hast thou with them. 

ʾal-ʾAnʿām: 159

A consultation with any Tafsīr such as ʾaṭ-Ṭabarī or ʾIbn Kathīr will give us the correct understanding that this was revealed in regards the Jews and Christians. They broke away from the true monotheism of ʾIbrāhīm (عليه السلام) and formed deviant sects. It was not revealed to denounce the ʾAhlus Sunnah for maintaining correct belief.

ʾIbn Kathīr further adds that Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) commented on the same verse, “The people of innovation, the people of confusion and the people of misguidance are not part of this ʾUmmah.”

I would dare ask, why misapply Allāh’s Words to those follow the way of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and his Companions and instead promote Mr Kazee who innovates and causes confusion and misguides Muslims about the preservation of the Qurʾān?

“Sin No Different to Disbelief”?????

After rambling against us extremist Sunnīs. Mr Kazee presented an argument which has no academic strength. He merely sought to emotionally play the crowd with infantile tactics. He averred that if your brother [really obsessed with that word] makes a mistake and is addicted to wine, you will not abandon him. You will continue to wish him well and keep ties with him throughout his life. Should he die before you, you will attend his funeral. Why then, Mr Kazee argued, if your Shīʿah “brother” makes a “mistake” in issues of belief would you abandon him and call him a disbeliever?

I unfortunately have to confess that such a juvenile “thesis” may actually work in South Africa where my scholar-colleagues almost never touch on the supremacy of belief over deeds. Let the mountains collapse before we touch on anything more controversial than virtues, six points of Tablīgh and once a year Sīrah.

I, however, am not absolved from stating the position of the ʾAhlus Sunnah in no uncertain terms. Mr Kazee has surely perused our basic books on creed and come across statements of ʾal-ʾImām ʾaṭ-Ṭaḥāwī for example:

ولا نكفر أحدا من أهل القبلة بذنب ما لم يستحله

We do not deem as disbeliever anyone from the people of the Qiblah [Muslims] due to a sin, for as long as he does not legalise [that sin].

This has always been our position that a sinner and disbeliever are not necessarily the same, as opposed to the Khawārij who held that upon committing a sin one exits Islām.

To equate a deed (drinking wine) with heresies in belief (interpolation of the Qurʾān, reviling the Companions, divine attributes to the Twelve ʾImāms etc), is not only unsound theology, but a heresy in itself. The position of the ʾAhlus Sunnah has always been that one who drinks wine remains a Muslim as long as he recognises his sin. His affair is with Allāh. One who never drinks but rejects the central tenets of Islām is outside the pale of Islām even if he calls himself a Muslim. These are basic matters Muslim children should understand. That one who presents himself as a major scholar should argue such drivel is utterly astounding.

The Qurʾān

If in the extremely unlikely event that Kazee has never read a Sunnī ʿAqīdah book, clarifying the distinction between sin and disbelief, I would assume that he has at least read the Qurʾān. Allāh clearly draws a distinction between kufr (disbelief) and fusūq (major open sinning):

وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ فِيكُمْ رَسُولَ الله ۚ لَوْ يُطِيعُكُمْ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْأَمْرِ لَعَنِتُّمْ وَلَٰكِنَّ الله حَبَّبَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْإِيمَانَ وَزَيَّنَهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ وَكَرَّهَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكُفْرَ وَالْفُسُوقَ وَالْعِصْيَانَ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الرَّاشِدُونَ

And know that among you is the Messenger of Allāh. If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would be in difficulty, but Allah has endeared to you the faith and has made it pleasing in your hearts and has made hateful to you disbelief, [major] defiance and [minor] disobedience. Those are the [rightly] guided.

ʾal-Ḥujarāṭ: 7

Also:

 إِنَّ الله لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ

Indeed Allāh does not forgive that partners be ascribed unto Him, but forgives anything less than that to whomsoever He wills.

ʾan-Nisāʾ: 48

Unlike Kazee’s contention, the Qurʾān teaches that one who dies on disbelief will not be forgiven. One who dies on something less, like drinking wine, can certainly hope for forgiveness.

The Internet

If in the further unlikely event that Kazee has not read the Qurʾān, he should avail himself of the wonders of Google. He could easily have found sound articles, even in English, such as the one which states:

What Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah believe is that the one who persists in sin is a faasiq (evildoer), not a kaafir (disbeliever), and that none of the people of the qiblah (Muslims) can be deemed a kaafir because of any sin less than shirk so long as he does not regard it as permissible. 

Very aptly the same article cites the Ḥadīth of one who drinks wine remaining a believer whose sin should not be confused with disbelief! So do we accept Kazee’s ramblings that Shīʿah kufr is comparable to drinking wine or do we accept the ruling of the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth?

Al-Bukhaari narrated (6780) from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) that there was a man at the time of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) whose name was ‘Abd-Allah and whose nickname was Himaar (donkey); he used to make the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) smile. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had him flogged for drinking. Then he was brought one day and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) ordered that he be flogged (again). One of the people said: O Allah, curse him; how often he is brought (for punishment). The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not curse him, for by Allah, what I know is that he loves Allah and His Messenger.” 

Sajdah and Charity

Continuing his heretical defence of his Shīʿah brothers, Kazee asked the audience to look at the good that his brothers do. He asked if they do not perform Sajdah and give charity? Well, do Catholics not perform Sajdah? Do Jews not give charity? Are they his brothers too? Oh, my bad, they are. I instead appeal to the Muslim of sound intellect, who may not have the academic qualifications as Kazee, to realise the fallacy of such reasoning.

Factual Errors

Throughout the seminar Kazee oozed arrogance. He touted himself as the moderate academic who knows his stuff versus the inept sectarian scholars of ʾAhlus Sunnah who pronounce on the Shīʿah without having any knowledge on Shīʿasm. Then, by way of example, he trumpeted how he knows about the ʿAlawī subsect of the ʾIthnā ʿAshariyyah, and mocked the scholars for never having heard of them.

Again, Kazee may have to resort to Wikipedia at least before trumpeting his (lack of) knowledge. The ʿAlawī are completely separate.

Yes, we all slip, but:

1. This was in the context of extolling his encyclopaedic knowledge on the topic and blasting others for not being able to match him.
2. So how many slips on serious matters must we overlook? The preservation of the Qurʾān? The insult to Mūsā (عليه السلام)? One so prone to tongue slips should rather refrain from addressing the public. And that is on the more positive assumption that these are slips, not heresies.

Atom’s Worth of Faith

Kazee’s kill stroke against the inept sectarian scholars of ʾAhlus Sunnah was that the Ḥadīth clearly states that anyone with even an atom’s worth of faith will be freed from Hell. As the Shīʿah have points of coincidence with our beliefs, surely that constitutes more than an atom and they will certainly enter Paradise.

If Kazee wishes to lie and pretend that the Ḥadīth refers to quantity of points of belief and not strength and weakness of belief, then I shall not bang my head on the wall. We “extremist sectarians” have generations of righteous scholarship to back our belief that every believer who had correct belief will be extracted from Hell, even if his belief was weak and he committed sins (such as drinking wine to keep to Kazee’s example). As for Kazee’s lie that it means that as long as the inmate of Hell had some points of correct belief, let us ask any five-year-old who is more truthful than Kazee, do Jews not have numerous points of coincidence in belief with us?  Are they our brothers who will spend the Hereafter with us? Maybe with Kazee, I pray not with me.

I have written more than intended to. This much however should be enough for any honest reader to realise than Kazee needs to repent from his deviant ways and that the Muslims should be aware of his shallow arguments of misguidance.

سليمان الكندي

X: @Sulayman_Kindi